4 ms·

> How would society, or more specifically government, even go about inspiring a cultural change to value scientists? Any ideas? "Too many athletes, too few sci

by bhousel 16y ago

> How would society, or more specifically government, even go about inspiring a cultural change to value scientists? Any ideas? "Too many athletes, too few scientists" is a broken premise: Elite athletes are valuable only because they are scarce. Government is doing plenty to make scientists scarce as well, so perhaps we will get our wish granted, in a perverse way.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Government is doing plenty to make scientists scarce as well... Like what?
- tdrgabi 16y ago
  salaries. I guess an academic career is not a highly payed one.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    If the government is determining the salaries of more than a small minority of scientists, then we've got other problems too. Shouldn't most scientists be getting their pay from universities, or the R&D departments of corporations? I mean, the CDC and NASA don't employ that many people in the grand scheme of things.
    - kd0amg 16y ago
      Shouldn't most scientists be getting their pay from universities, or the R&D departments of corporations? I mean, the CDC and NASA don't employ that many people in the grand scheme of things. You don't have to be an employee of CDC or NASA to get your pay via government funding. The university signs my paychecks, but the money comes from an NSF research grant to my co-advisor.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Salaries are low because supply greatly exceeds demand.
    - xiaoma 16y ago
      That still doesn't mean that the nation or world is better off, even economically, with the current number of scientists. The problem with using simplistic economic models when talking about scientific research is that it's extremely hard to quantify its value. Basic research has made tremendous advances in our health, standard of living and general wealth. It's also very difficult to determine how much each person's contribution was worth. I've read that surveys of late 19th industrialists and leaders who voted steam engine improvements as the most critical field for technological advancement for the next 100 years. It's an amusing idea in retrospect, but who would have paid for research that would lead to flight or electric rail? CDs, lasers, integrated circuits, etc... are great! But what kind of "demand" was there for research into quantum mechanics 80 years ago? Even if the demand were quantified, how much would each scientists contribution be rewarded? Surely, Feynman and other scientists building upon Einstein and Heisenberg's ideas created something of great wealth for us! But for the most part, those scientists won neither fame nor riches. As long as the focus is on simple short-term supply and demand, this is how it works. The scientist makes a clean pass, but it's the businessman or the engineer who takes the ball the last few paces, scores and gets all the glory. I for one believe that China is doing it right in this regard. The government is taking the lead in subsidising and investing in technological infrastructure as well as basic research to create more opportunities for private entrepreneurs in the long run.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Well, limiting the areas that can be researched might have some effect. We've all heard the horror stories about IT research being shut down because, e.g., various security problems "need" to be kept hidden. And direct regulation affects research into medical marijuana, or stem cell treatments. If the government is limiting research, then they're lowering the demands for scientists (or lowering the pay of a fixed pool of scientists). And if I can broaden your question to engineers as well, there's some reason to think that our patent regime may be stifling innovation, which similarly decreases the demand for engineers.
- bhousel 16y ago
  Well, my main concerns are: Cuts in spending on education, politicization of primary school curricula, immigration and travel policies that discourage talented scientists from working here, and general anti-intellectualism in politics. But maybe I was a bit harsh. The government does fund a lot of research..
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Apart from immigration/travel policies, how does this stuff affect science at all? Lets take anti-intellectualism in science. It's true that a few high profile intellectuals (e.g. James Watson) have lost their jobs do to this and that there are certain questions you Just Can't Ask (e.g., "would climate change be a good thing?"). But do you really think anyone will avoid a career in science for fear of that happening? I mean, it might scare me away from psychometrics of race/gender as a field, but it wouldn't prevent me from working on quantum mechanics. As for reducing the cost of k-12 education closer to the OECD average, why would I avoid physics as a result?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  People only watch them on TV because of their super-human performance. They achieve that through a mixture of hard training and innate ability. I mean, it doesn't matter how hard I train. I'm never going to play like Michael Jordan, or drive like Michael Schumacher. So this avenues for greatness are closed to me. EDIT: I hate when people delete a comment, leaving a reply orphaned. I was replying to a comment that said that these sports stars got there through hard work.
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    EDIT: I hate when people delete a comment, leaving a reply orphaned. I was replying to a comment that said that these sports stars got there through hard work. Not to get too meta, but that's one reason I've taken to including a quote from most comments I reply to.
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      Even more meta: I've taken to including a quote When you quote by indenting, as you have above, it forces some layout decisions on the browser. Frequently this style results in the page rendering wider than the browser window, so I need to deal with the horizontal scroll bar. I wish people would always quote with asterisks, or that pg would give us a BLOCKQUOTE mechanism.
manvsmachine 16y ago
Elite athletes are valuable only because they are scarce. That statement is vacuous in regards to the argument he's trying to make. Anyone who is elite at what they do is scarce, regardless of occupation; that's essentially the meaning of being elite. What sets athletes apart is the degree to which society rewards that eliteness.

by bhousel 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Government is doing plenty to make scientists scarce as well... Like what?

tdrgabi 16y ago
salaries. I guess an academic career is not a highly payed one.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  If the government is determining the salaries of more than a small minority of scientists, then we've got other problems too. Shouldn't most scientists be getting their pay from universities, or the R&D departments of corporations? I mean, the CDC and NASA don't employ that many people in the grand scheme of things.
  - kd0amg 16y ago
    Shouldn't most scientists be getting their pay from universities, or the R&D departments of corporations? I mean, the CDC and NASA don't employ that many people in the grand scheme of things. You don't have to be an employee of CDC or NASA to get your pay via government funding. The university signs my paychecks, but the money comes from an NSF research grant to my co-advisor.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Salaries are low because supply greatly exceeds demand.
  - xiaoma 16y ago
    That still doesn't mean that the nation or world is better off, even economically, with the current number of scientists. The problem with using simplistic economic models when talking about scientific research is that it's extremely hard to quantify its value. Basic research has made tremendous advances in our health, standard of living and general wealth. It's also very difficult to determine how much each person's contribution was worth. I've read that surveys of late 19th industrialists and leaders who voted steam engine improvements as the most critical field for technological advancement for the next 100 years. It's an amusing idea in retrospect, but who would have paid for research that would lead to flight or electric rail? CDs, lasers, integrated circuits, etc... are great! But what kind of "demand" was there for research into quantum mechanics 80 years ago? Even if the demand were quantified, how much would each scientists contribution be rewarded? Surely, Feynman and other scientists building upon Einstein and Heisenberg's ideas created something of great wealth for us! But for the most part, those scientists won neither fame nor riches. As long as the focus is on simple short-term supply and demand, this is how it works. The scientist makes a clean pass, but it's the businessman or the engineer who takes the ball the last few paces, scores and gets all the glory. I for one believe that China is doing it right in this regard. The government is taking the lead in subsidising and investing in technological infrastructure as well as basic research to create more opportunities for private entrepreneurs in the long run.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
Well, limiting the areas that can be researched might have some effect. We've all heard the horror stories about IT research being shut down because, e.g., various security problems "need" to be kept hidden. And direct regulation affects research into medical marijuana, or stem cell treatments. If the government is limiting research, then they're lowering the demands for scientists (or lowering the pay of a fixed pool of scientists). And if I can broaden your question to engineers as well, there's some reason to think that our patent regime may be stifling innovation, which similarly decreases the demand for engineers.
bhousel 16y ago
Well, my main concerns are: Cuts in spending on education, politicization of primary school curricula, immigration and travel policies that discourage talented scientists from working here, and general anti-intellectualism in politics. But maybe I was a bit harsh. The government does fund a lot of research..
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Apart from immigration/travel policies, how does this stuff affect science at all? Lets take anti-intellectualism in science. It's true that a few high profile intellectuals (e.g. James Watson) have lost their jobs do to this and that there are certain questions you Just Can't Ask (e.g., "would climate change be a good thing?"). But do you really think anyone will avoid a career in science for fear of that happening? I mean, it might scare me away from psychometrics of race/gender as a field, but it wouldn't prevent me from working on quantum mechanics. As for reducing the cost of k-12 education closer to the OECD average, why would I avoid physics as a result?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

CWuestefeld 16y ago
People only watch them on TV because of their super-human performance. They achieve that through a mixture of hard training and innate ability. I mean, it doesn't matter how hard I train. I'm never going to play like Michael Jordan, or drive like Michael Schumacher. So this avenues for greatness are closed to me. EDIT: I hate when people delete a comment, leaving a reply orphaned. I was replying to a comment that said that these sports stars got there through hard work.
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  EDIT: I hate when people delete a comment, leaving a reply orphaned. I was replying to a comment that said that these sports stars got there through hard work. Not to get too meta, but that's one reason I've taken to including a quote from most comments I reply to.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    Even more meta: I've taken to including a quote When you quote by indenting, as you have above, it forces some layout decisions on the browser. Frequently this style results in the page rendering wider than the browser window, so I need to deal with the horizontal scroll bar. I wish people would always quote with asterisks, or that pg would give us a BLOCKQUOTE mechanism.

manvsmachine 16y ago

Elite athletes are valuable only because they are scarce. That statement is vacuous in regards to the argument he's trying to make. Anyone who is elite at what they do is scarce, regardless of occupation; that's essentially the meaning of being elite. What sets athletes apart is the degree to which society rewards that eliteness.